Evaluations.

//**Kevelson eval.**//

 * Read the introduction (i.e., the first paragraph) and pause. Write down what you expect will be the topic, purpose, and audience of the paper.

Topic: I expect the topic will be about experts and laymen and the difference between them. Make sure the reader understands the article at hand. Purpose: Rather than assume what Brownlee is talking about, be able to read and understand Brownlee's article with a __clear__ understanding. Audience: Educated audience ( language: bigger words - veracity )


 * Now finish reading the paper. Were your expectations for the paper's topic, purpose, and audience fulfilled? If not, what do you think the topic, purpose, and audience are in the body of the essay? If the body of the essay does not fulfill the purpose as defined by the introduction, is the problem more with the introduction (because it does not reflect a new and better direction in the draft) or with the body (because it wanders)?


 * Is the tone appropriate for the purpose and audience? Does the writer use language appropriate to the needs of a nonacademic audience? Identify instances where the writer
 * succeeds in writing for a nonacademic audience.
 * need to consider revising in order to meet the needs of a nonacademic audience.

//**Lenihan eval.**//
Topic: Oxytocin Purpose: To educate the reader with what oxytocin is and does. Audience: Someone interested in learning about oxytocin.
 * Read the introduction (i.e., the first paragraph) and pause. Write down what you expect will be the topic, purpose, and audience of the paper.


 * Now finish reading the paper. Were your expectations for the paper's topic, purpose, and audience fulfilled? If not, what do you think the topic, purpose, and audience are in the body of the essay? If the body of the essay does not fulfill the purpose as defined by the introduction, is the problem more with the introduction (because it does not reflect a new and better direction in the draft) or with the body (because it wanders)?

If the paper was just on oxytocin, then yes, it was understanding. But due to the assignment, the topic should be regarding either Brownlee or Fisher's article. The purpose is to critique one of those and say whether or not you agree with their thesis. The audience should be for nonacademic readers. As far as the introduction and body, it only fulfills the needs of oxytocin and does not meet the requirements of the essay. I read your "revision" portion and thought of a few suggestions which I will place as notes on your paper.

It was brief, concise, and easy to understand. To meet the critique portion of your essay, give two or three examples of why you believe Brownlee or Fisher is right or wrong. What made the article worth reading that caught your attention.
 * Is the tone appropriate for the purpose and audience? Does the writer use language appropriate to the needs of a nonacademic audience? Identify instances where the writer
 * succeeds in writing for a nonacademic audience.
 * need to consider revising in order to meet the needs of a nonacademic audience.

> > Does the paper's opening
 * Focus upon the introduction.
 * introduce both the passage under analysis and the author?
 * provide background material to help your readers understand the relevance or appeal of the passage?
 * state the author's main argument?
 * state the author's purpose for writing?
 * state the point(s) that you intend to make about the author's main argument?
 * state the thesis?

Only gives information on oxytocin. Needs a bit of work, but well researched and easy to understand.

//**Trempelas eval.**//

 * Read the introduction (i.e., the first paragraph) and pause. Write down what you expect will be the topic, purpose, and audience of the paper.

Topic: Our similarities to animal relationship, and "science integrity." Purpose: To educate readers to understand the biochemistry of animals and humans. Audience: Nonacademic; language is easy to understand.


 * Now finish reading the paper. Were your expectations for the paper's topic, purpose, and audience fulfilled? If not, what do you think the topic, purpose, and audience are in the body of the essay? If the body of the essay does not fulfill the purpose as defined by the introduction, is the problem more with the introduction (because it does not reflect a new and better direction in the draft) or with the body (because it wanders)?

Expectations were met. At first, I thought he was agreeing with Brownlee's article. After he read the article a second time, Dean was able to take a questionable sentence, and do some research as to why Brownlee even placed the sentence in the article. He found that she had no real connection involving endorphins between the talapoin monkeys and humans. I feel that he mentioned his thesis later on, which kept me interested to find the point of his critique.


 * Is the tone appropriate for the purpose and audience? Does the writer use language appropriate to the needs of a nonacademic audience? Identify instances where the writer
 * succeeds in writing for a nonacademic audience.
 * need to consider revising in order to meet the needs of a nonacademic audience.

Tone is appropriate for nonacademic audience. Just by Dean's introduction, it was easy to understand as to the point he was trying to make. > > Does the paper's opening
 * Focus upon the introduction.
 * introduce both the passage under analysis and the author?.
 * provide background material to help your readers understand the relevance or appeal of the passage?
 * state the author's main argument?.
 * state the author's purpose for writing?
 * state the point(s) that you intend to make about the author's main argument?
 * state the thesis?

Answer : Yes. Good job Dean!


 * Focus upon the body of the paper.

Does the writer develop a reader-centered prose that effectively addresses its target audience and, in the same breath, focuses on the subject -- not on the writer's reflections or getting reader's to take action?

Does the writer accurately summarize the writer's work in one paragraph?

He summarized Brownlee's work in several paragraphs.

Does the writer briefly review the key points in the author's work that the writer proposes to evaluate?

He mentions oxytocin, vasopressin, then lastly endorphins. He stresses the analogy of the talapoin monkeys and how that even relates to humans.

Does the writer **assess the presentation** in the body of the paper? Does the writer
 * introduce and/summarize a key point in more detail than the writer provided in the earlier general summary.
 * evaluate the validity of the author's presentation, as distinct from your points of agreement of disagreement?
 * comment on the author's success in achieving his or her purpose by reviewing several specific point

He does so by taking a clearer look at what Brownlee was saying about the endorphins. The issue involved as to why she was including a quote by Barry Keverne, a primatologist at Cambridge University in England, which had no relationship to human endorphins. > Does the writer **respond to the presentation** in the body of the paper? Does the writer Yes.
 * identify which views with which you agree and disagree
 * discuss your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the author -- tying these reasons to assumptions -- both the author's and your own.
 * draw upon outside sources, where necessary, to support your ideas

> > Does the paper's conclusion
 * Focus upon the conclusion.
 * state your conclusions about the overall validity of the piece -- your assessment of the author's success at achieving his or her aims and your reactions to the author's views?
 * remind the reader of the weaknesses and strengths of the passage?

You gave good examples to help the reader understand, now that I reread the body of it you mentioned that only "one particular area" boggled you, which had to do with the endorphins. I'm unclear if this was the only point you were trying to make.
 * Focus on the paper's content. What sort of evidence is used to develop or support the position take in this paper? Are there adequate details, examples, or reasons to support each of the ideas? Do readers need more information at any point to understand the meaning or appreciate the point of view?
 * Summarize the paper, devoting one sentence to each paragraph.
 * Next, numbers the paragraphs. Do the paragraphs follow a logical order? Describe how the argument does or does not flow from the first to the second, from the second to the third, and so on. Are there any logical gaps between the paragraphs?
 * Are the author's paragraph's unified, coherent, and developed? If so, note them. Also, indicate any that confuse you, and explain why.
 * What did you like best about the paper?

He was able to use a citation, that Brownlee used, to figure out that it was a weak statement for her analogy and trying to relate it to humans.
 * What two features of the paper most need improvement?

You have one point, and are able to back it up with the following paragraph.